Posted on August 22, 2006. Filed under: 202 - Advanced Asma wa Sifaat |
Important
Principle
al-Mudaf (construct state) is
of two main types:
1.
al-Mudaf depicting possession
2.
al-Mudaf not depicting possession
The first type, includes
examples such as: Kalam Allah, ‘Ilm Allah, Qudrat Allah (Allah’s Speech,
Allah’s knowledge and Allah’s power)
The second type, includes
examples such as: Ka’bat Allah, Naaqat Allah (Allah’s Ka’bah, or Allah’s
she-camel)
This
shows that not everything that is attributed to
Allah in Idafa is necessarily His Attribute, for we all know that Ka’ba and the
she-camel is NOT Allah’s Attributes.
So how do we know whether the
Mudaf such as Kalam, Ka’ba, ‘Ilm, Naaqah, etc, is actually Allah’s Attribute or
not?
We only know this by knowing
the meaning of the Mudaf.
Hence, because we know the
meaning of Kalam, and know also that it does not exist independently, the fact
that it is an Attribute to Allah makes Kalam Allah’s Attribute.
On the other hand, because we
know the meaning of Ka’bah, and therefore we know that it exists independently,
we know that Ka’bah is NOT Allah’s Attribute.
Face
Now
bearing this principle in mind, one can only Attribute a Wajh to Allah,
if he knows what Wajh means. If he does not know what Wajh means, then he has
no authority to attribute it to Allah, for Wajh Allah could easily be the
second type of mudaf, like Kab’at Allah.
No scholars can attribute a
Wajh to Allah, if they do not know what Wajh means.
Wajh could mean face, as it
could also mean a direction.
The scholars could only
attribute a Wajh to Allah, if wajh means ‘face’.
They cannot attribute a ‘wajh’
to Allah if it means direction.
Therefore, if the scholars
affirm wajh as Allah’s Attribute, they have no choice but to believe that Wajh
means a face, and this is what they believed.
A good way of looking at this
is to say,
Whosoever held a similitude for
Allah from His creation has committed disbelief [kufr], whosoever disputes what
Allah has attributed for Himself has committed disbelief [kufr], there is
absolutely no similitude [tash’bih] in what Allah taala has described Himself
or His messenger; so, whosoever affirms [the attributes] for Allah ta`ala
[just] as they have been mentioned in the [qur’anic] verses, and in the
authentic reports – that is befitting the Majesty of Allah ta’ala and negates
all flaws from Allah ta’ala has truly struck the path of guidance.
But what the mainstream
Ash’aris say is quite different. They insist on negating the literal meaning.
They say: Yes, Allah has attributed something called ‘wajh’ to himself, but
what this means we do not exactly know, although we are certain that it does
not refer to wajh literally.
Shin
Ash’aris will argue this point
by trying to say,
Let us now take what you say is
an attribute of Allah – Shin.
The literal meaning of Shin in
the language is:
“The front part of the leg
below the knee and above the ankle.”
Now how can you say that by
applying a “literal meaning” one does not contradict the “without modality and
definition” principle that you claim to be upon?
This is incorrect.
Shin is in and of itself the
literal meaning, otherwise, Shin itself will be meaningless.
If in
Arabic someone says: inkasarat saaquhu, it literally means: His
shin broke. i.e. Shin is the literal meaning itself.
The same statement could be
made in relation to a Jinn, i.e. ‘his shin broke’, but is their shin like ours,
composed of blood, flesh and bones, between the knee and foot? Allah knows
best. However, the meaning of Shin is known.
When they say: ‘The front part
of the leg below the knee and above the ankle’, is the Hadd – or the definition
of Shin with respect to human beings, something which Ahlus Sunnah does not
affirm.
Rather,
we constantly state that our affirmation of Allah’s Attributes like Face and
Hands is the affirmation of existence (wujud), and not affirmation of
any definition (tahdid). Just as we literally believe that Allah exists,
without giving his existence any definition. Hence, Allah’s Hands are no
different to His existence.
It shuold be pointed out
though, that the reason why the latter Ash’aris negated Wajh, ‘Ayn, etc and
made ta’wil thereof, is due to Kalami principles that negating composition,
divisiblity and multiplicity of eternal.
A Maturidi scholar (Zabidi
al-Hanafi, d.~1200AH) mentioned,
Your
saying, ‘we take it by its literal meaning, and it is incomprehensible’ is
contradictory in itself. If you take by its literal meaning, then ‘as-saq’
mentioned in Suratal-Qalam (ayah 42), is a
‘shin’ which is a part made up of flesh, bones, muscle, and nerves. If you take
by that the literal meaning, then you have committed blasphemy, and if you deny
it, then how do you claim to take by the literal meaning?
The great Shafi’i traditionist
al-Khattabi (d. 388AH) said about the texts pertaining to Allah’s Shin,
This Hadeeth is one where our
scholars dreaded saying something, so they passed it on in accordance with the
literal meaning of the wording (fa ajrawhu ‘ala dhahiri lafdhihi). They did not
explore the depths of its meaning, in accordance with their Madhab of ceasing
to give tafseer to anything the essence of which is not encompassed with
knowledge (al-Asma wal-Sifat, al-Bayhaqi)
Again, to emphasize, the proper
principle is to accept the literal meaning (dhahir) and to negate the modality
(kayf).
